It arrived!

Please scan the Set ups and player aids and use Mediafire.

If possible scan the rules and do the same

Then we can post our hearts content at Avalon Hill and show up slowpoke and WOTC because we got the info before they did anything to stop it.

Sondrax,

Item:Germany, 1942 are we missing Ukraine, you noted Eastern Ukraine.
item:Also, no UK 1942 naval units around Australia, sub?

Thanks kindly for the information,
these are nice stocking stuffers, for the anxious children of AA50.

@Black_Elk:

Well, I still have high hopes for the game, but I can’t help but be disappointed with this news. I don’t see the benefit of including China in the set up, when all these China-specific rules introduce so much unnecessary complexity into the game. I hate to make suggestions for next time, because I have a feeling its going to be a while, but in the future I really hope the designers take into consideration whether new rules/features are going to be worth the effort, before including them.

So far I can count about 5 or 6 new rules that only pertain to China, and way the Chinese interact with the rest of the “Normal” players. But when you compare that with what we actually get out of China in terms of gameplay, its hard for me to see where the big pay off is coming from. Unlike the National Advantages in Revised or Tech, the China rules are not optional, but built into the framework of the game.

My request for future development would be to PLEASE stop incorporating new rules into the game, and stop looking to new “House Rules” as a solution to fix underlying game balance problems. Instead, focus on fine tunning the core gameplay mechanics that already exist (i.e. the stuff that is the same for everyone, throughout the duration of the game.) Consistency, simplicity, and ease of use, should always trump the other considerations, and only give way when an idea seems really innovative and promises to open up new and interesting dimensions to the gameplay.

That’s all I wanted to say. Other than all these nation specific rules, I’m happy with AA50, and look forward to playing when my copy arrives. :)

Wow, gotta agree completely here with Black_Elk
Looks like a lot of new and out-of-place rules basically just to create a speed bump
I think the “China rules” could have been done much cleaner without as many exceptions to the “Regular rules”
Anyways, we can see how it plays out, but I thnk China is just gonna get ran over  :-)

@Craig:

As I said in this post:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12753.msg353302#msg353302

I told you that the set up wasn’t correct, but I didn’t say that it was seriously wrong either.

And this:

Isn’t wasn’t that far off.  But it did have a few units missing that will certainly matter.

The extra transport that was missing in SZ 61 is a big deal for the Japanese in trying to expand on the first turn.  They are stretched thin as it is with the transports that they do get in the proper set up.

Take that one transport away and it would be that much tougher for them to get to places that they need to for their NOs.

Take it anyway you want, but I just warned you that the set up was wrong.  I didn’t want you to get in all that early work and then start bitching about how you were misled. :|

I don’t mean to flame you. Of course I read and understand what you said. In fact that’s exactly what I said as well. What I meant is that as soon as the news of the wrong setup came out everyone with knowledge started to say that playtesting with the old setup was futile and everyone should wait till the game came out. I disagree with that. The things we tried out with Germany/Italy still stand and for Japan it only becomes more easy.

Since I don’t see the early playtesting as work, rather as fun, I would never start bitching about it :-)

@JohnBarbarossa:

What I meant is that as soon as the news of the wrong setup came out everyone with knowledge started to say that playtesting with the old setup was futile and everyone should wait till the game came out.

For the record, I never said that playtesting with the incorrect setup was futile.  I said that drawing conclusions about game balance from that testing was futile.

@Craig:

The extra transport that was missing in SZ 61 is a big deal for the Japanese in trying to expand on the first turn.  They are stretched thin as it is with the transports that they do get in the proper set up.

Take that one transport away and it would be that much tougher for them to get to places that they need to for their NOs.

Great. Not only China 1941 don’t receive new units they need so desperate  :-P Japan receives a new shiny trannie!  :-o Now it’s clear to me, 1941 scenario is unbalanced and favors axis super-heavy. I will not play 1941 vanilla scenario unless China gets a very heavy bid, at least 12 (and maybe even UK, I don’t know how India can resist with that swarm of trannies) … or if I play Japan  :-D Maybe not using NOs makes the unbalance a bit less painful, but I think 1941 needs a heavy allied bid, even without NOs. Japan is simply too powerful, going allies KGF (Alaska path or JTDTM) or KJF (China killed J1, then Commonwealth without any hope of survive, then USA fleet killed or contained while western axis go party against poor soviets)

1942 scenario seems more balanced. I’ll need play to see it. Still, It’s sad see chinese fighter at range of destruction again  :-P

1942 all the way!

@Funcioneta:

Japan receives a new shiny trannie!  :-o Now it’s clear to me, 1941 scenario is unbalanced and favors axis super-heavy. I will not play 1941 vanilla scenario unless China gets a very heavy bid, at least 12 (and maybe even UK, I don’t know how India can resist with that swarm of trannies) … or if I play Japan  :-D

So wait… you haven’t played the game yet (or if you have, not very much seeing how it just came out), and are already determining how much of a bid the game needs in order to be balanced?  Geez people, at least play the game at LEAST 5 times and compare your results with other people before determining balance issues… it’s one thing to speculate, it’s another to assume that just because you know the rules, you know for sure if it is balanced or not.  Perhaps, for example, if the allies actually pressure Japan (unlike in Revised), Japan wont have time to play around in China.  We’ll find out though, I mean, the game COULD be totally imbalanced (and unfortunately unnecessary variables make unnecessary hassles- keeping it simple helps avoid oversights to balance, which is a concept not followed in this game), but we wont know for sure until we play.  I’m more interested in hearing how much longer it is than revised, because revised was borderline the longest I’d spend on a game like A&A in one sitting…  :|

@cousin_joe:

@Black_Elk:

Well, I still have high hopes for the game, but I can’t help but be disappointed with this news. I don’t see the benefit of including China in the set up, when all these China-specific rules introduce so much unnecessary complexity into the game. I hate to make suggestions for next time, because I have a feeling its going to be a while, but in the future I really hope the designers take into consideration whether new rules/features are going to be worth the effort, before including them.

So far I can count about 5 or 6 new rules that only pertain to China, and way the Chinese interact with the rest of the “Normal” players. But when you compare that with what we actually get out of China in terms of gameplay, its hard for me to see where the big pay off is coming from. Unlike the National Advantages in Revised or Tech, the China rules are not optional, but built into the framework of the game.

My request for future development would be to PLEASE stop incorporating new rules into the game, and stop looking to new “House Rules” as a solution to fix underlying game balance problems. Instead, focus on fine tunning the core gameplay mechanics that already exist (i.e. the stuff that is the same for everyone, throughout the duration of the game.) Consistency, simplicity, and ease of use, should always trump the other considerations, and only give way when an idea seems really innovative and promises to open up new and interesting dimensions to the gameplay.

That’s all I wanted to say. Other than all these nation specific rules, I’m happy with AA50, and look forward to playing when my copy arrives. :)

Wow, gotta agree completely here with Black_Elk
Looks like a lot of new and out-of-place rules basically just to create a speed bump
I think the “China rules” could have been done much cleaner without as many exceptions to the “Regular rules”
Anyways, we can see how it plays out, but I thnk China is just gonna get ran over  :-)

I definitely agree here, all these special rules are not what A&A is (supposed to be) about.

Rakeman, Japan don’t need time to kill China, they can do it J1  :-o And it’s a easy task. China needs at least 4 inf to hold the front (3 at least for defense of Yunnan). That’s a domino effect: China falls J1 (unless crazy dices), then India falls because Japan can focus in India even if they build a IC (Australia IC cannot defend against that swarm of trannies), then Japan has equal or more income than USA and, or beat americans, or contain then so Germany and Italy can toast soviets at pleasure. And don’t talk about trying ignore Japan with USA, the easier counter for Japan is attacking mainland America, and it’s very easy when you start with so many trannies.

Of course, I could be wrong. If so, I’ll be very happy. But chances are slim

Man, this is crazy. They don’t get 1 more trannie. They get 2  :-o and loaded with 3 inf, 1 art!  :-o

No, I’ll not play 1941 without massive bids for China and UK. Even as Japan, I want an enemy at least near to sparring level. This is not a sparring, this is a dead corpse

Maybe Japan is so strong because it is very easy to KGF, or Kill Italy first. Maby Japan is strong so USA has to attack in the Pacific. Just a thought, because Italy makes Germany much weaker against multiple amphib landings on the coast and in africa.

Where did you get this in Vienna (I am from Vienna too)?

Damage or Spielerei ?

My retailer (Harry) charges 84 € - but his have not arrived -yet :( ;)

Try KGF against this monster and you’ll see japaneses go picnic in Los Angeles  :-P

In Revised, USA could attack in Pacific, and it was a pretty good strat, even if few used. Japan was not a supersaiyajin as in 1941 setup, Japan it was strong, but not too much nor too few. Balanced. No more in 1941. I’ll stick to 1942 scenario.

Germany + Italy = 41 IPCs before NOs and conquered territories. Probably at least 50, maybe even more, 55 or such, after round 1 attacks. Not weaker, stronger. And Japan can reach 60 ipcs easily

OK, Sondrax thanks kindly for the info,

Here is my map of the 1942 Setup;
item:decided China should be its own color, it doesn’t count in USA territoral total.
item:Also, provided blue border to outline Chinese units, operational theatre.
item:Added more historic Reference Rondels for Axis and Allies;
Ok found a sondrax error fixed, S/B CA DD in SZ 12, Ukraine/EUkraine units corrected.
Ok found a bluestroke error fixed, s/b 2 INF-2 Arm Italy.
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=db7389213b434449ab1eab3e9fa335ca90971e287b6d25bf
interesting changes,
notice E canada 2 INF w ARM,
S Africa added Trans CT w RTL,
Trans Jordan added RTL,
Egypt gains 3 INF nice,
Australia w Ftr and no Navy,
Sea zone 13 added German DD w CT tranny,
Sea zone 1, added Uk CA w CT nice,
US w 3 BMB, one already in UK, ouch.
US Sea zone 56, nice Pacific Task Force w BB, CA, SS, CT to counter usual Second Pearl cleaning opening on J1.

Sondrax,

I’ve got one question: how much IPCs does a country receive has to make purchases on its 1st turn? Does it include IPCs from the National Objectives or just the value of its territories?

I’m asking because on the Setup Charts that were released the value of the starting IPCs only reflects the value of the territories owned by the country at the start of its turn.

Thanks

@Hobbes:

Sondrax,

I’ve got one question: how much IPCs does a country receive has to make purchases on its 1st turn? Does it include IPCs from the National Objectives or just the value of its territories?

I’m asking because on the Setup Charts that were released the value of the starting IPCs only reflects the value of the territories owned by the country at the start of its turn.

Thanks

Hobbes,
Krieghund or Craig already answered other thread,
you don’t get Bonus IPC until end of your turn.
So, the answer is no, on your first turn, you do not get Bonus IPC to purchase.  Ist chance would be Turn 2.

@Bluestroke:

@Hobbes:

Sondrax,

I’ve got one question: how much IPCs does a country receive has to make purchases on its 1st turn? Does it include IPCs from the National Objectives or just the value of its territories?

I’m asking because on the Setup Charts that were released the value of the starting IPCs only reflects the value of the territories owned by the country at the start of its turn.

Thanks

Hobbes,
Krieghund or Craig already answered other thread,
you don’t get Bonus IPC until end of your turn.
So, the answer is no, on your first turn, you do not get Bonus IPC to purchase.  Ist chance would be Turn 2.

Ah thanks, missed that reply :)

In Revised, USA could attack in Pacific, and it was a pretty good strat, even if few used. Japan was not a supersaiyajin as in 1941 setup, Japan it was strong, but not too much nor too few. Balanced. No more in 1941. I’ll stick to 1942 scenario.

I’m a bit worried about the '41 setup as well, but you must factor in VCs as well. If the '41 scenario is balanced, it would mean Germany and Italy would be able to hold onto Paris and Rome and at the same time take Leningrad and Stalingrad at the same time as Japan takes Calcutta, Sydney and Honolulu. The standard strategy to start with is KGF, but if it turns out to be too slow to take and hold a VC then we will be back to try a balanced strategy such as USA building enough to keep Hawaii off Japanese hands. This focus on the Pacific VCs is an improvement from AAR since I doubt if ever the Japanese land offensive would reach Moscow before the combined Allied offensive has put down the European Axis!

I predict we will see 50-100% deployment of US IPCs off the east coast, since the Germans and Italians are much stronger now IPC-wise.

@Stockus13:

Maybe Japan is so strong because it is very easy to KGF, or Kill Italy first. Maby Japan is strong so USA has to attack in the Pacific. Just a thought, because Italy makes Germany much weaker against multiple amphib landings on the coast and in africa.

That’s what I think.  Yeah, America COULD always have went Pacific, but it never needed to.  Now it may need to, we will see.  I still doubt Japan will be able to ever seriously threaten America though.